inquiry_regarding_scientific_ethics andru235 under what conditions would you forgo knowledge? say, for instance, that you are doing a study, about to make a significant breakthrough. you are approached by a person, or a community, who appeals to you to forego your research, perhaps because the person/community feels threatened or because there is doubt about the society's/community's ability to handle the results responsibly. do you complete the study, but keep private the results? do you forgo completing the study? or do you forge ahead, paying no heed to the person/community? is there such a thing as intellectual "greed"? can one be a knowledge "whore"? do scientists, in general*, care about the feelings/opinions/desires of the non-scientific community? is a collective vengeance being carried out against the ages of science's forcible repression? * all generalizations are false. so go ahead and make a few. 051207 ... andru235 given the previous century's abundant examples of technological abuse (i.e. gas chambers), from 1901 to 2000, do you have faith that the discoveries made today will ultimately be put to good use, and not used against the populace? is such a faith, in a way, naive? 051207 ... REAListic optimIST here, take this $5 to shhhh. 051207 ... andru235 well! that answers the question(s), now, doesn't it! 051207 ... zeke i do not think that there are lines of inquiry into pure science that are implicitly wrong. i may be ivory tower, but knowledge is it's own reward. it is the use of science in the world which requires consideration. that is the provenance of legislation, not science. it should not be incumbent on the scientific community to curtail inquiry because of the potential for unthinking or nefarious application of their gleanings. 051208 ... zeke that is, as long as the process does not harm persons or the environment, either directly or indirectly. 051208 ... REAListic optimIST that's a creepy response, zeke. I've got to say taht i certainly hope forethical boundaries to be exercised when paths of inquiry have the potential to bring about negative consequences. but maybe i'm just an idealist... 051208 ... phil Knowledge should be subsumed by belief. 051216 ... philda Consequences must be understood, not feared. Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. 051216 ... z RO: propose a hypothetical. 051216 ... REAListic optimIST should we test cloning on humans? should we investigate deadlier superflus? should we fabricate ice-nine? 051216 ... z should we test cloning on humans? no. it might be harmful to the clone who i consider as a person. that is not to say zygote or blastocyst which i do not consider a person. stem cell research is fair game. should we investigate deadlier superflus? yes. we need to understand them. if it is possible to create protocols for quarantine that is as close to absolute as possible, then i believe we can learn more from close examination of them. at some point, however, computer modeling might be a close second to actual experimentation. if so, we should do that. the cdc does a great job with hot research now. should we fabricate ice-nine? no. kurt imagined an experiment which was doomed to escape our control. that was his point. likewise, white plagues are to be avoided. remember, my criterion was no harm, directly or indirectly, to people or the environment. 051216 ... hsg i_do_not_know the answers but i_do_know that so_far our_collective_best has not been good_enough 110509 what's it to you? who go blather from